This helps make sense of the fact that Trump and some of his supporters may actually endorse one version of the rule of law. If this is controversial in the U.S., because it’s because Trump’s version is more dominant in nondemocratic political systems.

Meanings of the rule of law

Like “democracy” or “equality,” the rule of law is a popular ideal, but not always a clear one. For this reason, United Nations officials have tried to define it. Prominent organizations like the World Bank have measured it through basic indices or complex criteria, such as civil rights, order and security, constraints on government power and absence of corruption.

Yet using an appealing phrase to describe different social phenomena can have real political consequences.

The “rule of law” has at least two broad definitions that exist in obvious tension.

One is a dominant dogma of American political history, as conveyed by Founding Father John Adams’ succinct phrase: “a government of laws, not men.” The idea here is basic. Government leaders, like all citizens, should not be above the law, but rather bound by it. This means, for example, that a U.S. senator who extorts money is no more immune to being charged with this crime than an ordinary American.

A second possible meaning, in tension with the first one but present in democracies nonetheless, is that law ensures that people obey government.

Law over leaders

Let’s first consider the rule of law as John Adams and the U.S. Constitution’s framers defined it.

The U.S. Constitution and courts’ mandate to review specific laws defines the rule of law as a value and set of procedures that provide legal protection to all Americans. The framers of the Constitution stressed in Federalist 78 the need for judges with autonomy from politics who could defend fundamental citizen rights. Equality under the law was popularized as a foundation of the rule of law in the wider English-speaking world by the 19th century.

A carving reads ‘Equal Justice Under Law’ above the main portico of the Supreme Court building.AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster

This has not meant that all Americans, in fact, enjoy equal legal resources. Nor has it prevented powerful individuals or groups from using laws to their advantage. Nonetheless, institutions that enforce the idea that legal rules and procedures bind everyone, including leaders, are central to the U.S. and other countries. The expectation that rules will be applied to everyone also underpins contemporary international law.

Law and order

Trump and some supporters appear to embrace a different understanding of the rule of law. The president has in fact stated his dedication to the rule of law. Some argue that his leadership on certain issues, such as enforcing immigration law, has confirmed this commitment. This is not merely a case of alternative media. It underscores the importance of multiple meanings for the rule of law.

Trump seems to view the rule of law as deference to political authority and efficient law enforcement. This includes institutions that execute laws, which might be summarized as “cops, courts and clinks” (jails).

This is hardly a fringe meaning of the rule of law. Efficient enforcement and state order are critical components of a legal system that also embraces citizens’ rights and protections. Yet these two key facets of the rule of law don’t always sit well together.

Strong policing can accompany denial of equal protection to suspected criminals, patterns of brutality and racism. Leaders’ natural interest in strong and efficient law enforcement and citizen loyalty can override their legal accountability.

The world is certainly seeing a trend toward leaders like Egypt’s President Sisi and Turkey’s President Erdogan, who wish to control law, rather than subordinate themselves to it.

Trump, and Americans who consider him a strong leader, likely believe in the rule of law, as they understand it. The controversy among many lawyers is that the level to which the new administration elevates efficiency, enforcement and executive privilege tramples their dominant sense of the rule of law as government by laws, not people.

Growing conflicts between the Trump administration and a range of lawyers, judges and activists stem, in part, from each side invoking real, contestable concepts of the rule of law.

Naturally, even if Trump and some supporters share a genuine belief in the rule of law as enforcement and order, this does not justify acts he may have taken that violate American laws. It should nevertheless serve as a reminder that using complex concepts like the rule of law without context or nuance may make it much harder to understand genuine political disagreements.

David Mednicoff does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.